Blade Runner 2049 - Part 3

[Blitzkrieg]

The only thing I really agree with Mark Kermode there is that this sort of proves that critic reviews or Rotten Tomato score doesn't determine a film's box office success.

Rotten Tomatoes can only help a movies' BO prospects if it is marketed well. The marketing for BR2049 failed to bring in the younger demographic as well as the female demographic. This movie basically played to the older male demographic and totally fumbled with other target areas.

37% of the OW audience were under the age of 35 yrs and just 14% of the total OW audience were under the age of 25 yrs. That's shockingly low. Folks under 25 yrs gave this movie a 'B' CinemaScore while teens gave this one 'B-' as opposed to the overall 'A-' CinemaScore. The female audience turnout was just 29% for the OW.

The blame for the underwhelming marketing campaign and the subsequent under-performance at the BO goes to Alcon. They had the final say on the budget and the marketing strategy. Warner Bros just executed their plans but it wasn't enough.

The R-rating thing? Um two letters, IT.

This is true. IT had a superior marketing campaign led by WB (a major studio) and the studio played their cards right. Alcon had good intentions and made the right creative decisions but stuttered with the sales pitch/marketing aspect.

I think it was the running time that hurt it more than anything, especially considering it's a sequel to a movie that was considered a little slow at under two hours. But even films with long running times have proven to be very successful in the past.

I have said it before too. The run-time really does BR2049 no favors. Theater owners will find it tough to squeeze enough showtimes for the movie and even when they do the movie is screwed on Fridays because of office nights or other work related engagements and it's very tough to schedule a 3 hour sci-fi epic in there.

 

[Blitzkrieg]

Spoiler Alert - Designing the technology of ‘Blade Runner 2049’ https://www.engadget.com/2017/10/20/designing-the-technology-of-blade-runner-2049/

 

[TheVileOne]

Rotten Tomatoes can only help a movies' BO prospects if it is marketed well. The marketing for BR2049 failed to bring in the younger demographic as well as the female demographic. This movie basically played to the older male demographic and totally fumbled with other target areas.

37% of the OW audience were under the age of 35 yrs and just 14% of the total OW audience were under the age of 25 yrs. That's shockingly low. Folks under 25 yrs gave this movie a 'B' CinemaScore while teens gave this one 'B-' as opposed to the overall 'A-' CinemaScore. The female audience turnout was just 29% for the OW.

The blame for the underwhelming marketing campaign and the subsequent under-performance at the BO goes to Alcon. They had the final say on the budget and the marketing strategy. Warner Bros just executed their plans but it wasn't enough.

Just to continue the marketing strategy discussion, what specifically do you think didn't work about it to fail to bring in younger viewers and the female demos?

Now, if you would say the marketing should've maybe showcased more of Joi and K's relationship, that I would agree with. On the other hand, it's easy to say these things in hindsight. What they should've done and what would've worked better. It's possible even with a different strategy the movie might not have brought in audiences either.

This is true. IT had a superior marketing campaign led by WB (a major studio) and the studio played their cards right. Alcon had good intentions and made the right creative decisions but stuttered with the sales pitch/marketing aspect.

Right, I think the idea that an R-rating is an automatic box office killer is a fallacy. It didn't stop The Matrix Reloaded from being one of the biggest releases of 2003.

I have said it before too. The run-time really does BR2049 no favors. Theater owners will find it tough to squeeze enough showtimes for the movie and even when they do the movie is screwed on Fridays because of office nights or other work related engagements and it's very tough to schedule a 3 hour sci-fi epic in there.

Also good points. But this was the movie Villeneuve wanted to make, and this was the cut he wanted. But with that in mind, do you think Villeneuve could've made a couple concessions to make the movie a little more audience friendly?

My issue honestly isn't necessarily the length, but I think there's really not enough of Niander Wallace as a character in the film. That subplot was undercooked to me. So I maybe would've wanted some areas tightened, while maybe Wallace's role is even expanded. Though that doesn't necessarily fix the length problem.

 

[JtheDreamer]

I have said it before too. The run-time really does BR2049 no favors. Theater owners will find it tough to squeeze enough showtimes for the movie and even when they do the movie is screwed on Fridays because of office nights or other work related engagements and it's very tough to schedule a 3 hour sci-fi epic in there.

As much as I like the film - it's waaaaaaaaay too self-indulgent and could have easily trimmed 30-40mins from the run time.

 

[OfficerK]

If they had it any shorter it would have felt fast paced like any other film these days. I can't stand rapid fire pacing and cuts/editing throughout a film. Also, even if it was 2 hours or the same length as the original I honestly feel that would not have changed much regarding its box office. The mainstream appeal still would not be present. If it had been screwed up by cutting it down into a thin narrative with quick edits you'd have me here whining that they did make concessions, and created a weak mainstream friendly sequel for the attention deficit.

 

[warhorse78]

I seen it. I thought it sucked. Too many white people, too long, and nobody had any personalities. I just couldn't relate to anyone in this movie.

 

[JtheDreamer]

If they had it any shorter it would have felt fast paced like any other film these days. I can't stand rapid fire pacing and cuts/editing throughout a film. Also, even if it was 2 hours or the same length as the original I honestly feel that would not have changed much regarding its box office. The mainstream appeal still would not be present. If it had been screwed up by cutting it down into a thin narrative with quick edits you'd have me here whining that they did make concessions, and created a weak mainstream friendly sequel for the attention deficit.

Any shorter? The film was 243 minutes long! There's no way in hell if you cut it down to 200 or 210 it would feel rapid fire.

C'mon now.

 

[Smilodon]

If they had it any shorter it would have felt fast paced like any other film these days. I can't stand rapid fire pacing and cuts/editing throughout a film. Also, even if it was 2 hours or the same length as the original I honestly feel that would not have changed much regarding its box office. The mainstream appeal still would not be present. If it had been screwed up by cutting it down into a thin narrative with quick edits you'd have me here whining that they did make concessions, and created a weak mainstream friendly sequel for the attention deficit.

This - part of the appeal of this film is that indulges in establishing shots and longer takes. It adds to the dreamlike quality and mood that the film is deliberately aiming for. It's not long for the sake of plot - it's long because Denis wants to immerse the audience in the world.

Is it alienating for some? No doubt. But I personally wouldn't take it any other way.

 

[OfficerK]

Any shorter? The film was 243 minutes long! There's no way in hell if you cut it down to 200 or 210 it would feel rapid fire.

C'mon now.

It would, a lot more characters, a lot more going on in this movie than the first which was a more intimate and quiet experience at times. Granted they could have left out the scene with Gaff, which did nothing for anybody aside from a nod to the past. But for me some of the characters and plot elements are already almost too big for the movie. I don't think Luv or Wallace got quite enough time. IMO it should have been ten minutes longer...there is already one scene with Luv from the trailers missing among a few others. But as it is Denis said not much was cut from the movie. I'm glad we are getting a definitive cut as an initial release instead of having to wait ten+ years.

 

[C. Lee]

It's length is the main thing keeping me from seeing it so far. The theater in my town is showing it once a day....and that time overlaps when I pick my daughter up from school. As to the weekends....we have had things planned each weekend during the showing time. Theaters in the next town over are showing it more times a day....but if I want to see it there, I have to add around an hour more time to cover drive time....so taking off for 4 hours in the evening may be something a younger person can do....but it's rough for us older codgers.

 

[Doctor Jones]

You do have to plan your day around this movie. But if you can make it work, trust me when I say it's totally worth it.

 

[Luigi]

Fantastic article on Luv.
http://www.rogerebert.com/balder-an...hine-the-humanity-of-luv-in-blade-runner-2049

 

[TheVileOne]

Luv was definitely one of my favorite, standout characters in the film. Sylvia Hoeks did a great job.

 

[BlackFox]

Great article, love that this film can spawn interesting debate and views, never thought of half the stuff in this or several other videos I have watched, rare that a film can do that. You can tell its a Bladerunner film. t:

Luv was really good and I enjoyed her character a lot more the second viewing once I understood what she was about a bit more and caught more of the dialogue she had. Great performance too.

 

[akfj]

I've had this movie stuck in my head for the past week, so I decided to see it again on Friday. Amazing movie. Impressed with the patience shown in its pacing, the different locations, and the great cast, particularly Sylvia Hoeks. Love the score. It's like a corrupted, ominous version of the original's score.

 

[Blitzkrieg]

Just to continue the marketing strategy discussion, what specifically do you think didn't work about it to fail to bring in younger viewers and the female demos?

Now, if you would say the marketing should've maybe showcased more of Joi and K's relationship, that I would agree with.

I agree with this. If the female turnout was so low then something was clearly lacking in the marketing. Showing a bit more of K & Joi's relationship probably would have worked.

For the younger demographic I would say that Alcon needed to show more from a storytelling perspective. I mean the younger folks don't have a clue about the dystopian future and the replicants of the Blade Runner universe. I mean if I didn't know about the original movie, I probably wouldn't care about this one. So it's not really fair to expect them to care about this movie. Alcon didn't do much to engage them with their sales pitch. The younger folks were like

The whole marketing campaign was shrouded in secrecy and the draconian policy regarding spoilers from the early tweets or reviews didn't help matters.

On the other hand, it's easy to say these things in hindsight. What they should've done and what would've worked better. It's possible even with a different strategy the movie might not have brought in audiences either.

This is also true. We can observe at this point in time on what went wrong with the marketing but it's still not easy to conclude that a different plan would have been better for BO prospects. Something other than what we got might have failed as well. Although speculating that other strategies would have definitely worked out for the better isn't that big of a stretch when there are clear and objective metrics where BR2049 is shown to be lagging behind.

Right, I think the idea that an R-rating is an automatic box office killer is a fallacy.

It didn't stop The Matrix Reloaded from being one of the biggest releases of 2003.

Actually R rated movies were the big BO plays in the 90s. 'R' rated movies had much bigger market share than PG and G rated movies and they were also consistently ahead of the PG-13 movies. The big change occurred at the start of the new millennium when Harry Potter, LOTR (WB/NL), Spider-Man (Sony) and POTC (Disney) during the most profitable era of Hollywood and thus PG-13 movies started to reign supreme at the BO.

Also good points. But this was the movie Villeneuve wanted to make, and this was the cut he wanted. But with that in mind, do you think Villeneuve could've made a couple concessions to make the movie a little more audience friendly?

I think Villeneuve and Alcon execs made the right call as to not reveal the story/plot points or much of the romantic sub-plots. It would have made the movie more accessible for the GA to some extent but I'm glad Alcon & WB put their foot down and respected the decision by the filmmaker.

Plus Blade Runner is an esoteric IP. It was never really conducive for gangbusters figures at the BO. The property was too obscure and cerebral to thrive among the GA.

 

[Faora]

I take it that you haven't seen this yet https://www.instagram.com/p/BZF-fooDCIv/?hl=en&taken-by=ana_d_armas

Damn).

 

[FeedOnATreeFrog]

Just saw this. I'm kinda torn.

I like how the original film didn't really put plot at the forefront. It was so simple, and it just reveled in its noir atmosphere and theatricality.

But here, the film pushes its simplistic story to the forefront with a focus on a drawn out predictable mystery, and some of the long atmospheric scenes, while alluring and gorgeous, don't entertain the way the first does with its more noirish theatrical sensibilities. 2049 is a lot more dry. Just compare Tyrrell with Leto, or the villains. And then on top of that, it goes on for much longer.

2049 was definitely impressive in some regards. But I don't see myself rewatching it.

Also, I think Her took some of the wind out of 2049's sails when it comes to providing an interesting look at the future.

 

[The Shape]

I seen it. I thought it sucked. Too many white people, too long, and nobody had any personalities. I just couldn't relate to anyone in this movie.

 

[DeadPresident]

That’s actually a legitimate artistic criticism these days. Welcome to 2017, enjoy your stay.

 

[Mysteryman]

Looks Like Sylvia has been cast as Lisabeth Salanders twin sister in The Girl In The Spiders Web.

 

[David H.]

Should’a been Lisbeth, in hindsight.

 

[Blitzkrieg]

I seen it. I thought it sucked. Too many white people, too long, and nobody had any personalities. I just couldn't relate to anyone in this movie.

 

[Blitzkrieg]

Damn).

 

[dark_b]

movie is out for over 2 weeks so not going to hide this into spoilers.

Sean Young performance in the first had an uncanny feel to it. Her fake cgi face in the new one was not a problem when they show her. I mean the cgi face was obvious cgi. but still good enough for that moment.